HOw to Explain Gravity

[TrevorW]

:whistle : People you are drifting I can hear the twilight zone sound track

[renormalised (Carl)]

There's nothing "Twilight Zone" about it, Trevor. Drifting somewhat off topic we may be, but we're still talking about educational/life experiences that are related to the topic.

[xelasnave]

Indeed gravity does not suck...

and there is no such thing as a force we describe as attraction..


gravity pushes..

it is a universal pressure created by all the particles travelling from everywhere to everywhere else...and when one embraces such a concept as a fundamental truth we will find we do not need dark matter and the force they seek currently described as dark energy is indeed the system of gravity that controls the Universe...it pushes..and in evidence I present the propostion that it is impossible to hold a galaxy in place if one were to enlist the mythical force of attraction..only push can perform such a feat...either that or one has to conceed that gravity travells faster than light..which it can not I suspect.

General Relativity is simply geometry, (think of it as a pythagorean?? formula wiht an added dimention..time...) that seeks to record how space is affected by matter whereas it is matter that is effected by space..sadly General Relativity offers no reason why space "bends" but I suggest it is bent by a system of particle pressure that general relativity seeks to quantify but pays no recognition to its existence..

General relativity presents a prospect that space is bent in subserviance to the math ..what it really is and a physical explanation as to why is absent..and the explanation..could be that space is in fact a sea of particles travelling in all directions at c and providing a resultant pressure ...

this idea is not new and goes back a ways (Le Sage 1745) but it is clear that Newton was familar with the premise and when pressed for the make up of the force of gravity offerred as a good scientist of the day would have been bound to do ..he said it was indeed the force of God...Dr A did not contridict this notwithstanding he revolutionised the rest of Newton's approach to gravity with general relativity... so it seems that science has left that part of gravity in the same place Newton and Dr A left it....the force of gravity is left with God..we have the Sums but we dare not take away the power

I have been sailing (sailed a boat from Brisbane to Balina..great adventure) and been observing and missed this ...



alex

[GTB_an_Owl (Geoff)]

was wondering where you were

now the place can get back to normal

geoff

[Ian Robinson]

No mass no gravitational field.

Next question.

[bojan]

Alex,
Why on Earth the "pushing" force of gravity would be the ultimate panacea to all our troubles in understanding the world, as you are claiming?
Could you please elaborate directly, in detail why is that, and what are the implications of the idea.
From what you wrote above, this is not obvious at all. It looks and smells more like a Sunday sermon :-) And this is definitely not a science.

Edit:
Also, why pushing gravity force is acceptable and attracting is not?
What is the difference between those two concepts? Mathematically, it is only the sign, "+" or "-"....
However, OBSERVATIONS and all our other experimental experience tell us gravity manifests itself as an ATTRACTION FORCE.

We had discussion some time ago on this forum when I challenged anyone to derive the Newton's law of gravity from that "pushing" force concept mechanism.. and no-one ever presented any trace of result of that work so far.
And I am saying it will not happen anytime - simply because it can not be done.
The challenge is still on :-)

[xelasnave]

I am delighted with the interest in this matter.
Thanks to all.
No mass no gravitational field is certainly the current view but I hold a different view... it is the current view that prevents anyone going past the need for dark matter...
I am neither a scientist or a preacher I am Alex I am a thinker and in my own world a doer...

The math of the Push Universe is simple.. and is as follows...

P = P

I see things this way... the particle flow of everything from everywhere approach has the only chance of uniting the forces...General Relativity is fine but it tells us nothing of the machinery and thats why it can not fit the other forces...and it never will.

Equivelance is nice but is poor logic... I may as well say a horse and a car are the same because they both provide transport.. and so a mechanic can not take his knowledge andd apply it to a race horse... so why trust a system of defining gravity that finds its basis in how a lift travells and a humans reaction to the forces generated....
I say the math of General Relativity may well be helpful in measuring space in humans terms but does nothing tyo offer an explaination as to the force ofd gravity and how it works...

If we are to rely on what science is happy with as to its understanding of gravity we are left with the conclusion, of Newton and left in place by Dr A ,and that is the fanciful notion of gravity being due to the force of God...and if anyone says such is not so I would like to hear what they think our current science attributes the force of gravity to if not the position that Newton and Dr A were happy to accept.... I do not ..it is incredible that folk pass happily by that when speaking of Newton or Dr A's contribution to human understanding of gravity.



Push however can achieve such ....

I am pressed for time but later I will provide my TOE and I am sure then all will realise that there may be something in my approach.

alex

[bojan]

Alex,
Being Alex, you did not answer my question :-)

So let me repeat the challenge, in some more detail:

Assuming there are some strange particles that fly grom everywhere to everywhere, in the process of hitting other particles (including matter, like electrons, protons, atoms, molecules etc), they are delivering some of their momentum (m*v) to them.. and because there must be a screening effect, in the vicinity of massive objects, there will be some asimetry, there will be more push towards than away, resulting in what appears as attraction force... Am I right in assuming this is your Idea?

Now, all I am asking you is to start from the above, and derive the formula from it for that residual force.
The result must be of a form F=G*m1*m2 / SQRT(R), the famous Newton expression for gravity force.
Why? because:
We KNOW that it is valid for very small and very large distances (from fraction of mm to light years - experimentally confirmed.. in the lab and in space) .
We KNOW it affects anything from the size of electron to the size of a star cluster, again experimentally confirmed in the lab and in space (OK, there are some unexplained effects on galactic scales, but only unless we assume there is more matter in Galaxies than is visible. With this assumption, whatever that matter might be, the problem goes away).

Only when you come up with this derivation, I will take your comments and ideas seriously.
P=P is simply not adequate... Not for science, that is.

However, until then and while you work on this (impossible, IMO) task... in the moments of rest and relaxation... lets have a beer and some fun ...

EDIT:
I just wanted to add couple of more things you have to consider when deriving the expressions and interpreting the results:
- Calculate the total mass of "pushing" particles. This may be very interesting to know :-)
- Density of "pushed" mass... Gravity works for extremely dense objects (electron for example: it seems its density is infinite, as it does not have (measurable) size.. it is almost like a small BH, only it does not evaporate (but, all that will be meaningless because once you prove your theory, Mr Hawking and his ideas will also go into the trash of the science history..). However, if it does not have size, how can it screen the "pushing" particles? And gravity IS affecting it. And the proof is in the total effects between two masses.... electron mass is ~0.2% of that total, if my memory serves me well... too much to be assumed non-significant).
- and so on....

[AlexN]

Im very interested to read more

[Jeff]

Interesting discussion.

The push/shadow/particle models of gravity are thought provoking and initially seem to be viable, but then seem to .... well ... fall down!
I find it especially hard to conceptualise these models for Black Holes.

Info on the following site is a bit of a mixed bag, but some of the questions are valid and much of it is thought provoking.
http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html

I applaud people who question & challenge theories and try to improve on them ... it's like a breath of fresh air. Sometimes we have too much faith in conventionally held views (eg. gravity and cosmology models) and get too lazy to challenge and improve on them.

Re explanations for an interested teenager:
- start with Wikipedia enty for gravity
- It summarises the development/evolution of various models
- As for the "why" of gravity, I just enjoy the mystery for now
(while efforts continue to find links with electromagnetism and/or quantum theories)

[AlexN]

The "why" for gravity - when i put my beer down. I want it to stay put..

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Interesting discussion.

I find it especially hard to conceptualise these models for Black Holes.

My feeling is that "pushing" particles have to be of infinite mass and therefore infinite volume density to explain residual force for objects of all sizes and masses and densities. This is simply unworkable and inconsistent concept, even if considered just as a mathematical mind game (as some popular theories were accused of being just that).
Actually, ideas like that create more problems than they manage to solve (if any).

Originally Posted by Jeff

I applaud people who question & challenge theories and try to improve on them ... it's like a breath of fresh air. Sometimes we have too much faith in conventionally held views (eg. gravity and cosmology models) and get too lazy to challenge and improve on them.

Same here.
BUT, to maintain the credibility of the challenger, it has to be done at the same level as so called "official science".
That means, the tools used to challenge those theories (math) must be of
the same or better/higher standard... Otherwise, it is only chat with friends & pint of beer in the pub :-)
The problem is, scientist ar NOT DUMB. And they also go to pubs.. or they used to.. well, majority of them. So all those ideas are already considered (together with hectolitres of that valuable liquid )

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Interesting discussion.


Info on the following site is a bit of a mixed bag, but some of the questions are valid and much of it is thought provoking.
http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html

I had a look at this website and after the first couple lines I found a problem...

The author claims that BH were never observed..
OK... That may be so (indeed, they were never DIRECTLTY observed)
However, couple of stars near the centre of our own Milky Way WERE observed, orbiting something invisible, in very very close orbit (100 AU or so), which has a mass of couple of millions of suns.
There must be an explanation for this.
Perhaps it is not a BH.. but the mass estimation is certainly pretty correct.. and size is smaller-than-something... and it is a monster of an object. So what is it ????

Another problematic claim on that website:

"The upper limit on the strength of gravity implies that Einstein's general relativity equations will have to be corrected so that gravitational field strength can never exceed a fixed upper limit. This is analogous to requiring that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Trying to extrapolate the success of general relativity from its successes under low field strength conditions to very high field strengths is analogous to extending Newton's and Maxwell's equations to motion at and beyond the speed of light."

This is simply not the case.

What is really implied here is non-linearity of space-time continuum. However, speed f light is finite and of certain value not because of non-linearity but because of exactly the opposite. Also because of the mechanism of EM wave propagation in space, and that is described by Maxwell's equations.

I am still reading this website... so there will be more comments from me, hopefully :-)

[bojan]

Oh...
This last one tells all.


*****
Here's a really weak astrophysics joke:
If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
****

Now, if the author considers THAT a joke (weak even..), I am giving up on him, 100%.....

[xelasnave]

How exciting to find so much interest in this subject.

Firstly before I study math to prove that what is suggested can not be done in fact can be done I would like to find if there is a consensus of all those participating here to the current position science treats gravity.
We have Newton and Dr A both of who say gravity is due to the force of God.

Perhaps the notion of push is difficult to accept but I would think it is much easier to accept than leaving the answer to the prime motor of the Universe as being unexplained and in the hands of God...

So whilst we wait for establishment of the current position I will use the time to derive Newtons formulas (or similar) from the push concept.

In truth my mind has been preoccupied with other matters and indeed my body has been taken merely to drive a certain person from place to place...

I like the positions that are being taken here and take this opportunity to say I will answer all questions posted to date to everyones satisfaction..I just need some time...I cant do this on the run as I am off some place else in a matter of moments...

Pus h has no problem with black holes for they are an extrapolation of math bringing into reality a myth ...they are binary systems which because of the interesting features of a push universe causes us to see things wqe wish to..black holes..but in fact it is the high shielding of particular binaries that produce the vortextual situations that generate the exotic rays sited as evidence expected where there be a black hole....


Sorry to offer more things to debate before disposing of the stuff on our list..however we have to establish the facts as to my God propostion as being sciences position at the moment.

alex

[xelasnave]

Bojan asked

Assuming there are some strange particles that fly grom everywhere to everywhere, in the process of hitting other particles (including matter, like electrons, protons, atoms, molecules etc), they are delivering some of their momentum (m*v) to them.. and because there must be a screening effect, in the vicinity of massive objects, there will be some asimetry, there will be more push towards than away, resulting in what appears as attraction force... Am I right in assuming this is your Idea?

For the sake of establishing a starting point I say yes..however it is too simple in this formate...

There is no need for more push or less push way of thinking about it but perhaps in the context of the universsal flow I speak about as having more or less energy ..the flow direct from "space" will have more energy than the flow that has passed thru the planet....or thru a simple hydrogen atom for that matter...

Sorry I cant stay but I am on a lead... and it is being tugged right now

alex

[bojan]

Alex,
Let's put God aside... This is only a last resort for those impatient people who can not find (acceptable to them) solutions to problems NOW, and/or who are not willing to wait (or not willing to accept that certain puzzles can not be solved in their life time).

I want to give you here another starting point:
Assume that you have infinite plate, made of material which is perfect shield for your "pushing" particles, and a golf ball 1m above (or near) it.
Could you tell what will be residual pushing force on the golf ball?
To satisfy all conditions I mentioned in previous posts, you will have to conclude at the end (by calculations of course, not by common sense logic) that that force must be huge, infinite in fact. Because here you have ALL the universe pushing this poor golf ball in only one direction.
The acceleration that ball is suffering will be also infinite.
To achieve this, the mass of "pushing" particles hitting the ball in certain time interval (say, 1 second) must also be infinite.

From this starting point, you can imagine very easily that the mass density of "empty" space is also huge.... and so is the mass of the whole universe.
Now, according to current BB theories only 75% of required mass of the Universe must be allocated to Dark matter, the rest is known to exist and is visible.
But if we go for "pushing" theory of gravity, it is my feeling we will end up with even bigger problem. I bet it will turn out this theory predicts/requires 100.000.000.000.....etc times bigger mass of the universe. And it is not there otherwise we would already have contraction of the Universe instead of expansion?

Also, those particles (they must have mass otherwise they do not have momentum so they can not push anything) apparently do not interact with themselves at all.. otherwise the Universe would be a very crowded place. And we know it is not. Not in this sense, that is.
How can you explain those basic problems with "pushing" theory, without creating even bigger problems?

I am fully aware that I am grossly simplifying things here. I am just trying to give you counter-arguments. on the same or similar level you are using.

[AlexN]

Could it not simply be the fact that Newton and Dr A could not find a suitable answer to the question, so following suit on almost every decision made way back when, they just wrote it off as an act/force of god?

I'm no scientist or mathematician, but I would put forth that for either theory to be true, there is still a lot that needs to be proven... Newton and Dr A, Did they ever prove the existance of God? If not, how did they draw the conclusion that Gravity is directly related to God? On the other hand, Proving the Push Universe theory, you will have to be able to prove the existence of infinite forces..

I would have to think that proving infinite force would be much more likely than proving existence of god.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by AlexN

Could it not simply be the fact that Newton and Dr A could not find a suitable answer to the question, so following suit on almost every decision made way back when, they just wrote it off as an act/force of god?

I would not be surprised if they (especially Dr A) used expressions like this just as a figure of speech... which was also acceptable/polite in those times. And often mis-interpreted

[bojan]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

.... as having more or less energy ..the flow direct from "space" will have more energy than the flow that has passed thru the planet....or thru atom

I am sorry but I must clarify your statement above.

You are talking about less energy after passing through the object.
Where is that energy gone? Is it converted into some other form?
Because we know that energy can not be created nor it can be lost. It can only be converted into other form, however the total amount must be the same before and after ANY interaction (where energy conversion takes place)
There are other conservation laws we are talking about here.. one of them is the conservation of momentum, which must also be accounted for down to the last bit.
If energy is somehow left in an object your particles are passing through, then this object must have absorb it.. which means it must have became hotter.. which means if your theory is correct, everything in the Universe should be blazing with heat.
Which is clearly not the case. The average temperature of the Universe is 4° K.... The hotter bits are hotter because of nuclear fusion (stars) or because of gravitational potential energy converted into heat (brown dwarfs, accretion disks around black holes etc)